Quote of the day—President Obama

It ought to lead to some sort of transformation. That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage. They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed, and mass shootings became a great rarity

The main difference that sets our nation apart, what makes us so susceptible to so many mass shootings, is that we don’t do enough — we don’t take the basic, common-sense actions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. What’s different in America is it’s easy to get your hands on gun — and a lot of us know this.

Well, I cannot accept that. I do not accept that we cannot find a common-sense way to preserve our traditions, including our basic Second Amendment freedoms and the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while at the same time reducing the gun violence that unleashes so much mayhem on a regular basis.

President Obama
September 22, 2013
Remarks by the President at the Memorial Service for Victims of the Navy Yard Shooting
[H/T to Jay F. for the email.

Read that last paragraph carefully. He says we can “preserve our traditions, including our basic Second Amendment freedoms”. That he added the word “basic” there is highly suspicious. Do you suppose he considers muzzle loading long guns as “basic” but not semi-autos firearms or handguns? That would be consistent with his admiration for Australia and England which banned extensive classes of firearms including semi-autos and handguns. And he did push hard for the latest “assault weapon” ban.

But I think I can rephrase his words just a bit to make his intent more clear:

Just like your health insurance, if you like your guns you can keep your guns.

Isn’t that better? What could be ambiguous about that? It’s good to have clarity.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—President Obama

  1. So the UK bans all handguns and semiauto rifles & shotguns. Australia bans all semiauto rifles & shotguns and most pump shotguns.

    And Obama praises them for doing so.

    But he does not want to ban guns?

    • Thanks for the email Jay. I tried to respond but it bounced. I wanted to know if I could use your comments in the email on my blog.

    • No, of course he doesn’t. As long as there is some type of gun that some type of non-government person can have under some sort of highly regulated storage, permitting, and usage condition, then guns have not been banned.
      He’s a pol, and more narcissistic, egotistical, and self-centered one than most. Of course he lies, like he breathes.

  2. I would point out that mass shootings are highly rare events and still occur in countries with draconian firearms regulations. Plenty of crime with the use of firearms in former Great Britain still exists. Sorry, trading our right for firearms to supposedly address rare events (that are responded to by firearms and can be discouraged by widespread firearm carry) is non-sense.

    Want our spree shootings to decline?
    End the insanity of Gun Free Zones (GFZs) that are utterly useless and actually promote these events.

      • And if it isn’t murder without a murderer, but only a “death of interest to the police”, how can there be a comparison with the US where there are thousands of murders, compared to only a score per year in the (f)GB due to the lackluster investigation efforts of the Bobbies? The narrative has to be maintained, regardless of its estrangement from reality. The occasional boy who says the emperor is naked can be ridiculed and mocked by the ignorant proles.

  3. So he wants “common-sense actions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people”? So do we. Lets start by not assuming that ALL gun owners are “criminals and dangerous people” (that whole “innocent until proven guilty”) and passing restrictive laws that only the law-abiding are going to …er…abide by. Start by actively taking a look at the criminal elements and removing their firearms. Then take a look at the mental health industry. But of course he’s not going to do that, because to anger both categories is to lose a very large portion of his party’s voting base.

Comments are closed.